Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title included.
Some inconsistency in use of template.
All initial elements included: Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title
Did not use template.
Some initial elements missing: Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title
5
Description
Well-written description of lesson with enough detail to make the application of the Integration Plan clear.
Clear description of the lesson, but few details leading to the need to peruse the plan before the lesson becomes clear.
Sketchy description. Few details. Difficult to understand the lesson even after reading through the plan.
5
Standards: PA
Multiple categories included across curricular areas.
Specific standards referenced.
Very complete explanation of how the standard will be addressed in the lesson.
Only one set of curriculum standard addressed.
Only a few specific standards included.
Somewhat sketchy explanation of how standards will be addressed.
Little effort shown in locating and adding standards to template.
A minimal number of standards addressed.
Brief or unclear explanation of how lesson will address standard.
5
Standards: 21stCentury
List of standards included is clear. A thorough explanation is connected with each standard with very clear activities associated how it is to be addressed.
Explanation does not address specific standard listed. Connection between lesson activities and 21st century skills could be elaborated upon more thoroughly.
Little evidence showing understanding of 21st century skills. Non-specific activities address minimal number of standards.
5
Standards: NETS
List of standards included is clear. A thorough explanation is connected with each standard with very clear activities associated how it is to be addressed.
Explanation does not address specific standard listed. Connection between lesson activities and NETS*S could be elaborated upon more thoroughly.
Little evidence showing understanding of NET*S. Non-specific activities address minimal number of standards.
5
Level of Inquiry
Levels addressed as appropriate for project/lesson undertaken. More than one level addressed.
A clear explanation is included as to how each level is addressed.
Only one level of inquiry included.
Brief explanation of how it is addressed. Raises questions left unanswered.
Level of inquiry is noted but very sketchy explanation of how it is addressed. Difficult for reader to understand how it is addressed.
5
Effective use of research tools
Activities and types of tools appropriate for type of project/lesson undertaken.
Clear explanation of how students will be engaged in finding and using resources.
Activities and types of tools appropriate for type of project/lesson undertaken.
Explanation seems forced or unclear to the reader.
No use of research, or selection of research tools seems inappropriate for the type of project/lesson undertaken. Connection to student use of tools is vague.
5
Types of Communication
Activities presented are clearing connected to the type of communication chosen with a clear explanation of why the type of communication was chosen.
Appropriate use of collaborative environment included.
Activities are included, but the explanation is somewhat vague,
Use of a collaborative environment seems forced and not necessary for student learning.
Choice of communication is unclear with little explanation of why and how it will be used.
No evidence of collaboration.
5
Potential for student engagement
There is a range of activities that include LOTS as well as HOTS, but it is obvious that activities engage students in HOTS to a great degree.
Activities include HOTS that build on LOTS and provide scaffolding for student engagement as needed.
Some inclusion of HOTS, but most activities tend to be LOTS. A change in some activities could easily boost them to a higher level.
Activities include LOTS exclusively.
5
Creative use of a web 2.0 tool
Teacher made great use of web 2.0 tools to both instruct and provide opportunities for students to use the tools.
Students were often given the opportunity to present their learning using their own choice of web 2.0 tools, and to engage in communicating with others.
The tools chosen are an integral part of the lesson; it could not have been accomplished as well without them.
Teacher made some use of web 2.0 tools for instruction.
Students used web 2.0 tools to view what others had created such as reading blogs, viewing videos, listening to podcasts, etc.
They were given little opportunity to create anything themselves nor to communicate with others using these tools.
Teacher did not use web 2.0 tools in instruction.
Students were given some opportunity to use web 2.0 tools in learning activities, but not in presenting what they learned.
5
Differentiated instruction
Many opportunities are provided for differentiation in nearly all areas of differentiation listed.
Scaffolding is provided in all activities.
Students are given opportunities to make their own choices with alternative ways provided for participating in the learning activities.
Some alternatives are provided, but most activities are teacher driven and specified for the entire class.
Some evidence of scaffolding for some activities.
Student choice is limited although some alternatives are available.
The activities are teacher driven and provide little opportunity for alternative approaches to learning.
5
Instructional strategies
A variety of instructional strategies are used and are obviously appropriate for they project/lesson.
The plan shows deep thinking about how each of the chosen strategies will be applied.
Activities and materials are well thought out and nearly complete as evidenced in the ePortfolio.
Appropriate choice of instructional strategies is evident.
Most activities and application of strategies is still in the planning stage.
Some evidence is available showing how activities will be carried out and included in the ePortfolio.
A limited number of strategies have been chosen with superficial explanations about how they will be applied.
Little evidence of activity planning. Reference may be made to materials, but little evidence of their production can be seen.
5
Marzano’s instructional strategies
It is obvious that the teacher has found ways to include many of these strategies appropriately in the project/lesson.
The explanation spells out clearly how each of the strategies will be applied.
Several strategies have been included.
It is evident that the choices are appropriate and the explanations for use clear.
Little thought was given to how these strategies might help student achievement. Very few were incorporated into the project/lesson. The explanation of how they will be applied is not clear.
5
Integrated use of free or other software applications
Technology tools have been incorporated into the project/lesson appropriately. While a large number of different tools may not have been used, those used extend the opportunity for learning greatly and the lesson could not have been done as well without them.
Technology tools have been incorporated into the project/lesson appropriately. An attempt was made to try new tools or to use familiar tools more often.
Very limited use of technology tools although an attempt was made to use several. The lesson could have been taught just as well without them
5
Reflection on practice
Reflection shows the teacher is building upon current practice, taking risks in learning, and stretching to meet new goals.
Reflection shows the teacher is building upon current practice, and making an attempt to try new strategies and technology tools.
Reflection shows the teacher is building upon current practice, although is somewhat self-limiting.
Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title included.
All initial elements included: Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title
Some initial elements missing: Name, grade level/subject area, and lesson title
Specific standards referenced.
Very complete explanation of how the standard will be addressed in the lesson.
Only a few specific standards included.
Somewhat sketchy explanation of how standards will be addressed.
A minimal number of standards addressed.
Brief or unclear explanation of how lesson will address standard.
A clear explanation is included as to how each level is addressed.
Brief explanation of how it is addressed. Raises questions left unanswered.
Clear explanation of how students will be engaged in finding and using resources.
Explanation seems forced or unclear to the reader.
Appropriate use of collaborative environment included.
Use of a collaborative environment seems forced and not necessary for student learning.
No evidence of collaboration.
Activities include HOTS that build on LOTS and provide scaffolding for student engagement as needed.
Students were often given the opportunity to present their learning using their own choice of web 2.0 tools, and to engage in communicating with others.
The tools chosen are an integral part of the lesson; it could not have been accomplished as well without them.
Students used web 2.0 tools to view what others had created such as reading blogs, viewing videos, listening to podcasts, etc.
They were given little opportunity to create anything themselves nor to communicate with others using these tools.
Students were given some opportunity to use web 2.0 tools in learning activities, but not in presenting what they learned.
Scaffolding is provided in all activities.
Students are given opportunities to make their own choices with alternative ways provided for participating in the learning activities.
Some evidence of scaffolding for some activities.
Student choice is limited although some alternatives are available.
The plan shows deep thinking about how each of the chosen strategies will be applied.
Activities and materials are well thought out and nearly complete as evidenced in the ePortfolio.
Most activities and application of strategies is still in the planning stage.
Some evidence is available showing how activities will be carried out and included in the ePortfolio.
Little evidence of activity planning. Reference may be made to materials, but little evidence of their production can be seen.
The explanation spells out clearly how each of the strategies will be applied.
It is evident that the choices are appropriate and the explanations for use clear.